UPDATE: In the wee hours last night after posting this article two important events were brought to my attention:

1. CBS just released the rest of the 60 Minutes interview with President Obama the day after the Benghazi attack. See what it says here at Fox in a post by Brett Baier, who I gave kudos to below. In it the president refused to call the attacks terrorism, notwithstanding his statement at the debate he’d called it that from day 1. It shows the president did not, in fact, take that position until much later, vindicating Mitt Romney in the debate and showing the president deceived the American people (with Cindy Crawley’s help). Byron York and Ari Fleischer both tweeted to ask “why sit on this information until now?” Makes me want to watch the Caddell video again…

As Vic Lundquist reported, some in the media (Fox) have not let this go. Brett Baier in particular has done a great job. And I was moved when I saw Pat Caddell’s comments (video in Vic’s post, and re-included here below).

But today I finally, finally saw a headline that gave me a glimmer of hope about our media and Benghazi. Two mainstream papers are asking the right questions about what happened and why.

The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post have just, in the last two days, asked some pointed questions to the administration about what happened. Do we expect an answer before Tuesday? I don’t. And for that it’s difficult to forgive the media, as Pat Caddell says. They sat on this too long to allow the truth to get out in time for it to have an impact on people’s choices Tuesday. Unless you vote for Mitt and don’t let the president off the hook for hiding the ball.

In the Washington Post piece, the editorial board asks the reasons why the facility was so under-prepared when the threats of violence were so obvious?

Fox News reported this week that a secret cable described an Aug. 15 “emergency meeting” at the consulate, at which the State Department’s regional security officer “expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support and the overall size of the compound.”

Fox reported that the cable, dispatched to Washington, said the emergency meeting included a briefing about al-Qaeda training camps in the Benghazi area and Islamist militias, including those that allegedly carried out the Sept. 11 attack. In another cable on Sept. 11, hours before the attack, Mr. Stevens described “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the local militias and police, to which the State Department had entrusted the consulate’s defense. Separately, according to a report on ForeignPolicy.com, Mr. Stevens may have dispatched a letter to Benghazi authorities, complaining that a policeman assigned to guard the consulate was photographing it on the morning of Sept. 11.

Even if you believe what the Post is willing to, that the ultimate US response was all that could be mustered (there seems to be evidence to the contrary due to assets being available in Italy and a drone flying overhead), they still ask the key question:

…why [were] the various agencies … not better prepared for such an emergency, given the clear warnings. Did the Obama administration’s political preoccupation with maintaining a light footprint in Libya lead to an ill-considered reliance on local militias, rather than on U.S. forces? Given the region’s instability, why were no military rapid-reaction assets — such as Special Forces or armed drones — within reach of Northern Africa?

While the agencies separately defend themselves — or not — the White House appears determined to put off any serious discussion of Benghazi until after the election. Sooner or later, however, the administration must answer questions about what increasingly looks like a major security failure — and about the policies that led to it.

Yes, it appears to be a major security failure, resulting from seriously flawed policies. But “sooner or later” is not really satisfactory to me, since I firmly believe that how the Obama administration planned for, responded to, and reported about this event is highly relevant to whether we should be voting for President Obama’s re-election.

Before you vote Tuesday, please watch this entire video and listen carefully to this emotional outcry on behalf of four Americans that were assassinated in Libya, and their families. The cover-up continues unabated. As Americans, will we let Barack Obama get away with this?

Democrat Pat Caddell:

“This White House. This president. This vice president. This secretary of state. All of them are willing apparently to dishonor themselves and this country for the cheap prospect of getting reelected; are willing to cover-up and lie and the worst thing is, the very people who are supposed to protect the American people with the truth, the leading mainstream media . . . They have become a fundamental threat to American democracy and the enemies of the American people!”

Credit to Kevin Anderson for finding this YouTube for MRC

WE WILL NEVER FORGET!

American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist– Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

In all candor, I actually believe Barack Obama thinks most of us Americans are stupid regarding the decisions he made and his inaction regarding the Benghazi assassinations. Those four Americans absolutely knew help was on the way and that it would be just a matter of an hour or two before they would be rescued. They had no doubt we would answer the call! They knew we would never leave them high and dry. I am furious that the person we grant authority to as commander in chief would leave an American Ambassador and three other great American patriots to fight their guts out for seven hours as he watched through high definition TV screens from a drone!

We will never forget!

Barack Obama, Commander in Chief?

American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist– Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

It may surprise many of you, but I voted for Obama in 2008. This time around, I am voting for Mitt Romney, and here’s why:

#1 – Obama’s slim list of accomplishments – After his first term in office, Obama can tout a very sparse list of successes. We had all expected, and he promised, so much more. Yes, he bailed out General Motors and Chrysler, and we are all glad to see those companies doing better, but those companies make up less than 1 percent of the United States’ total economic activity. The vast majority of the U.S. economy continues to languish in the doldrums of the slowest recovery ever.

If Obama wants to really help the auto industry, he needs to lift the rest of America out of its economic slump so that more people have the money to buy cars. Also, one of the best ways to help the auto industry is to be more tough with cheaters like China who game the system in order to sell cheaper goods than American companies. Everyone knows China is cheating on trade and that they are a “currency manipulator,” but Obama has refused to take a hard line against them. Mitt Romney has promised to label China a “currency manipulator” on the first day in office.

#2 – Mitt Romney is a man with a particular set of skills that are needed so badly in America today. This is a man who has spent his entire career turning around troubled enterprises, from small businesses to large businesses to the Olympics. And America needs a turnaround!

Today, fewer children believe that they will be better off than their parents than at any time in our history. Americans all over the country have began accepting “the new normal” of low job opportunities, declining incomes, and a weaker America abroad. That is a sad commentary on the state of the American Dream.

Politicians and economists are already talking about a “post-American world,” an America in decline much the same way England, Spain, and Rome all rose and fell from power throughout history. They believe America’s days of power are numbered. I can’t accept that way of thinking. I want to believe America’s brightest days are yet ahead.

As far as particular skills that Romney has, I think nobody knows better than him how to champion small businesses and help them grow. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy and that was Romney’s career for 25 years. I also think that Romney will be able to use his knowledge of business organization to streamline government by consolidating departments and getting rid of duplicate and wasteful spending. Romney knows how to make organizations much more cost efficient while preserving the programs that Americans depend on.

#3- Obama’s Benghazi-gate – In regard to the terrorist attack last month in Libya that murdered our ambassador, we now know enough to make a judgement call on Obama’s actions. We now know that the ambassador had requested increased security multiple times before the attack but was denied each time. In fact, the Obama administration ended up reducing security at the embassy one month before the attack.

We also know that Obama refused to act in order to save those at the embassy while the attack was taking place. In fact, three different requests for aid were denied during the attack. Planes in Italy were just an hour away and could have been deployed at a moments notice during the attack which lasted over seven hours. But Obama, fearing another “Black Hawk Down” episode, did nothing.

We also know that the Obama administration’s first explanation as to why the attacks occured (namely, an anti-Muslim video and a “spontaneous protest” to that video) have been proven demonstrably false. It took Obama two weeks before he admitted that the cause of the attack was terrorism, and not the anti-Muslim video he had initially cited. We know that a terrorist organization claimed credit for the attack just hours after the initial attack and that the Obama administration was aware of the terrorist group’s announcement. In summary, we know that Obama tried to cover-up his irresponsible, reckless and naive actions in order to help his chances to get re-elected. I know “cover-up” is a strong word, but in this case the evidence is overwhelming. If there is one thing American’s expect and deserve, it is that we expect our President to tell us the truth, even when the truth is hard.

Are such actions fitting of our Commander-in-Chief? The terrorist attack in Benghazi Libya last month was the first time an American ambassador has been murdered in over 30 years. At one point in time, killing an ambassador was just cause for declaring war. But our ambassador wasn’t just murdered, he was also tortured and raped then dragged bloody through the streets of Benghazi. American’s should be angered by the Obama administrations mishandling of the situation, and especially over the cover-up that ensued the weeks after the attack.

Mitt Romney has criss-crossed the nation many times listening to and speaking with small business owners and everyday Americans deeply concerned about the economy. He’s pictured at such a meeting at Brewery Bar IV on June 19, 2011 in Aurora, Colorado. (Photo – John Moore/Getty)

A couple of nights ago, President Obama admitted his MATH challenges to Jay Leno. Do you think his deficiencies just might have something to do with his economic challenges? Like his bullheaded thinking that government is the engine behind America’s economy? (Notice: I did not use Obama’s “bull******” word.) What about his failure to understand that continually spending more than we take in has put us on the rickety road to ruin? Does his aversion to arithmetic prevent him from grasping that he’s added almost as much debt held by the public as all prior American presidents in history? How about the President’s choking on things like, oh… say, a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET?

Take a look:

Leno: Here’s Samantha from Colorado: “When you help your daughters with their homework, is there a a subject you struggle with?”Obama: Well, the math stuff I was fine with up until about seventh grade.Leno: Yeah.Obama: But Malia is now a freshman in high school and — I’m pretty lost.Obama: Fortunately, they’re great students on their own. and, you know, if something doesn’t work, I’ll call over to the Department of Energy and see if they have a physicist to come over.

How about we call Mayflower moving company and get the math mish-masher out of the White House? We’ve got someone running for president whose passion for numbers, economic analysis, and results is part of his DNA. Undergirding it all is his passion for helping people. It’s helped him turn around failing businesses, a state in trouble, and an entire troubled winter Olympics.

★ How did Romney learn so much about numbers, economic analysis, and business? Glad you asked! Here’s how:

Romney attended Stanford University for a year before serving 30 months as a missionary for his church. He then headed to BYU (where Ann was attending) to study English and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree. Mitt wanted to pursue a business career, but his Dad advised him that a law degree would be helpful to him, even if he didn’t become a lawyer. So, he enrolled in a grueling, newly-formed, joint four-year Doctor/Master of Business Administration program coordinated by Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School. It was a rigorous, dual course of study. (He and Ann were married by then and were busy parents to two small children. Ann also determinedly finished her undergraduate work by taking night courses at Harvard University Extension School. In 1975, she earned a Bachelor of Arts degree with a concentration in French language from BYU.) With hard work, discipline, and dedication, Romney graduated in 1975 cum laude from the law school in the top third of the class. He was named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top five percent in his business school class.

★ You’ll like this: Romney for President today launched four excellent new videos on SterlingBusinessCareer.com. It’s a NEW website highlighting Governor Romney’s successful achievements in the private sector. When you stop by, you’ll hear from folks who worked at businesses benefitting from Romney’s work. Romney for President says, to date, the campaign has released 17 different videos documenting The Gov’s private-sector experience. The videos have been viewed over 125,000 times.

Here’s one of the new vidoes: ‘Uniquely Qualified’

Learn more about Romney’s record of building, fixing, and growing business; see the other three new videos here.

★ While Romney was standing with a stalwart crowd of patriotic Americans in blustery, chilly Iowa today, speaking on matters of great importance, and while further incriminating news about Benghazi was breaking, President Obama put on his suit to rock with MTV host Sway Calloway. No calling in (like he does for those pesky security council meetings); MTV deserved his presence! Listen to this hard-hitting question and how Obama rambles trying to give a presidential answer:

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Remember that the attacks came in waves and lasted for six and a half hours. Drones were in position to watch. Teams could have been deployed from Italy and arrived in time to help. What happened?

Reacting to this news, Charles Woods, the father of killed ex-SEAL Tyrone Woods, didn’t mince words:

The father of a former Navy SEAL killed in the Libya terror attack last month said Friday that U.S. officials who denied a request for help while the diplomatic compound in Benghazi was under attack “are murderers of my son.”

Charles Woods was reacting to accounts by Fox News sources that a request from the CIA annex for backup was denied by U.S. officials. His son, Tyrone Woods, was killed in the Sept. 11 assault.

“They refused to pull the trigger,” Woods said. “Those people who made the decision and who knew about the decision and lied about it are murderers of my son.”

Woods said he forgives whoever denied the apparent request, but he urged them to “stand up.”

Glen Beck also interviewed Mr. Woods today. He asked Mr. Woods about his interactions with the president, vice president and Secretary of State Clinton. He was not impressed that any of them were terribly sincere in their expressed apologies. Our vice president even made a couple less than appropriate remarks (surprise), and Mrs. Clinton explicitly said they’d go after the guy who “made that film” is arrested; not the attackers. Here’s that video:

When can we expect the administration to respond to these, and other inflammatory allegations, or should we expect to be kept in the dark until after the election?

Mr. Obama’s condescending comments in the debate last Monday evoked embarrassment for him as his stature seemed to diminish right in front of my eyes. As if this much younger man with virtually no leadership experience 44 months ago feels so elevated as to lecture a proven, seasoned leader such as Mitt Romney. Mr. Obama’s hubris knows no bounds. The nature of narcissism is such that humility is rarely felt by a man that places high value in the power he thinks he possesses.

The WSJ editorial board published a short column titled, A Game of Battleship? Mr. Obama’s supreme confidence in slamming Governor Romney on the size of the Navy serves to only compound a growing sense among Americans that Obama’s credibility is eroding.

And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we’re counting ships. It’s what are our capabilities.

That was President Obama at Monday night’s debate, rebuking Mitt Romney for noting that the U.S.Navy is the smallest it’s been in nearly a century and may soon get smaller. It would be nice to think the President has been up late reading Alfred Thayer Mahan. To judge by the rest of his remarks on the subject, he hasn’t.

F/A-18C Hornet on Aircraft Carrer Deck (photo source: www.Navy.com)

We mean Mr. Obama’s well-rehearsed jibe that “we also have fewer horses and bayonets” than we did during World War I. This was followed by the observation that “we have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

Yes, Mr. President. And we have fewer of all of those things, too.

Many historians believe that President Reagan defeated the mighty Soviet empire economically; that by building a strong national defense, the Soviet Union was constantly keeping up until it effectively went broke.

When the Soviet Union fell in 1991, the Navy counted 529 ships in the fleet, including 15 aircraft carriers and 121 nuclear submarines. In 2001 the Navy was down to 316 ships, with 12 carriers and 73 subs. In 2011 the numbers were 285, 11 and 71, respectively. On current trajectory, Mr. Romney said, “we’re headed down to the low 200s,” a figure Mr. Obama did not dispute.

The President is right that the ships the U.S. puts to sea today are, for the most part, much more capable than they were 20 or 30 years ago. But that’s true only up to a point. Aegis cruisers and destroyers responsible for defending their immediate battle space are now taking on the additional role of providing ballistic missile defense. The tasks multiply, but the ships aren’t getting any additional missile tubes.
[...]
Concerns about ship numbers may seem passé. They also seemed passé to many in the late 19th century, which is exactly why Mahan wrote “The Influence of Sea Power Upon History.” If we’ve again become cavalier about maintaining the freedom of the seas, it’s because a powerful U.S. Navy has accustomed us to indifference. Weaken the Navy further, and that’s a luxury we’ll lose.

Ultimately, it is the credibility of the POTUS that allows him to retain authority through reelection. One definition of credibility is “worthy of trust.” The complete erosion of trust was so complete with Presidents Johnson and Carter they lost a second chance to serve (President George H.W. Bush lost mainly because his vote was bifurcated with Ross Perot). It has become most apparent to me and many other Americans that President Obama is no longer worthy of our trust. Daniel Henninger’s weekly column in the WSJ is excellent on this subject: Suddenly, a Credibility Gap:

There have been only two events that could be said to have caused significant movement by voters in the campaign. One was the Oct. 3 Denver debate in which Mitt Romney disinterred political skills that stunned the incumbent and woke up a sleeping electorate. Race on.

The other is Benghazi. The damage done to the Obama campaign by the Sept. 11 death in Benghazi of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American colleagues has been more gradual than the sensation of the Denver debate, but its effect may have been deeper.

The incumbent president has a credibility gap.

The phenomenon of a credibility gap dates to the Vietnam War and the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. The charge then was that LBJ wasn’t leveling with the American people or Congress about Vietnam. The credibility gap was hardly the only thing that caused LBJ to withdraw from the 1968 election, but it eroded support for his presidency.

Credibility gaps can be unfair things. They generally involve difficult foreign affairs in which presidents possess information and realities never revealed to the general public, presumably for its own good. That may be what this White House believes about Benghazi. But it is also true that only this White House knows why it allowed the Benghazi disaster to drip though the news from September into October, with no credible account of the attack, even as reporters for newspapers such as this one got the story out.

In time it was no surprise that people began to ask: Was the White House hiding something about an event of enormous gravity to protect the president’s candidacy? For much of the American electorate, that would be cause to start marking down a presidency.
[...]
Even by the standards of our celebrified culture, Barack Obama’s personalization of the American presidency has been outsized. He and his political team sought this aura. Hillary and the rest of the cabinet receded, while he rose. In Monday’s debate, Mr. Obama stumbled into a summation of his status: “This nation, me, my administration.” L’etat, c’est me.

Until now, it worked. Despite an awful economy, the president’s likability numbers held firm. Many wanted to believe in this larger-than-life president. His clumsy handling of Benghazi, however, has opened a gap in the president’s credibility…
[...]
It may be that voters think both candidates have stretched the truth, but credibility is the coin of a presidency. The political cost of devaluing that coin is higher for an incumbent seeking a second term and higher still for this one. Two weeks from Election Day, Barack Obama has been shown in Benghazi to be a president with feet of clay. It may well take him down.

Contrast Mr. Obama’s loss of trust or credibility with the following statement made by Governor Romney in Colorado this week when he walked out to speak at a much larger audience than he had expected; as reported in The Ulsterman Report:

“Lord, if this is your will, please help to make me worthy. Please give me the strength Lord.”

American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist– Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

UPDATE: Greta van Susteren and Liz Cheney discuss the president’s debate statement he did all he could to protect our people during the attack, while our forces only an hour’s flight away in Italy weren’t deployed during any of a 7 hour, multi-wave attack our leaders were able to watch from drones overhead. Even an F-18 flyover may have scared the attackers off, but nothing was done. Meanwhile on one occasion Reagan acted within 90 minutes to scramble fighters to take down a possible terrorist threat in the sky. Decisive leadership can get things done. The question is: where was the president? Where was the Secretary of State? Wouldn’t the Secretary of Defense have given the president a choice of assets to deploy in the region? Nothing was done, and our president says he did all he could? Greta: “we just sat and watched.”

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

Three emails were obtained.

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” and the notation “SBU”, meaning “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

The text said the State Department’s regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”

The message continued: “Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four … personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.” It said a “response team” was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”

The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

Were these just a few emails lost in the rush? Nope. According to the Examiner:

“Fox is told that approximately 300-400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding,” van Susteren added. One of the addresses that received the emails “is the White House Situation address,” she said.

What else do we need to know? Hundreds received these emails, including the White House situation room. There’s no room for confusion. Immediate reports did not suggest a spontaneous protest to a YouTube video. They clearly indicated a terrorist attack.

While I have a hard time calling anyone a liar, it’s getting harder and harder to come up with plausible excuses for how the White House could possibly have maintained in all honesty a position that the attack in Benghazi, which they watched through military drones, was a reaction to the YouTube video. It’s getting nigh impossible to come up with any possible explanation other than utter incompetence or dishonesty. For all Obama’s bluster in Monday night’s debate about “one thing [he] learned” is the need as Commmander-in-Chief to send clear messages and avoid changing positions, his record on this point is disastrously inept.

With this information, how can the White House get to a place where it blames an irrelevant YouTube video for 2 weeks rather than saying it was a terrorist attack? How can it send out the UN ambassador to perpetuate this story with such certitude?

While officials did [early on] mention the possible involvement of “extremists,” they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.

It would be one thing to come out and say “we just don’t know what happened, we are investigating and will let you know when we know something.” But it’s clearly another to blame a cause the evidence before you indicates is wrong.

Here’s CBS’ video report:

If, as this report suggests, the president really thought terrorists were behind the attack, why didn’t the administration slow down and say they just didn’t know? Why take such a definitive position contradicted by the evidence?

Something is really off here, and the president needs to come clean. Was it that the White House truly believed the CIA report mentioned by the Washington Post that suggested the Benghazi attack was a result of the video? If so is this a case of willingly believing the story that suits you best despite significant evidence to the contrary? What does it say about the president or his administration that he’s willing to ignore facts staring him in the face? My bottom line is that it’s getting tougher to find ways to let the White House off the hook here.